Epstein Data Wiki

Stephen Alexander

Properties2
tagsperson, medical-network, palm-beach, psychologist, 2008-plea, sex-offender-registration
aliasesStephen R. Alexander, Steve Alexander, Dr. Alexander, Steven R. Alexander

54 min read

Name as printedStephen R. Alexander, Psy.D.1
OccupationClinical psychologist, private practice, West Palm Beach, Florida2
Practice address1825 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite 204, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406. An earlier address, 400 Executive Center Drive, Suite 202, West Palm Beach, appears on a 2009 subpoena13
Florida licenceFlorida Board of Psychological Examiners, Psychologist, PY00037132
Earlier public postChief Psychologist, Juvenile and Family Divisions of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit and Division of Youth Affairs, Palm Beach County, September 1987 to July 1989; Court Psychologist in the same divisions, October 1985 to September 19872
Named in the 2006 diversion termsCondition 10 of the pretrial-intervention terms Epstein’s counsel put to the State Attorney’s Office on 9 August 20064
Jail visitPalm Beach County Sheriff’s Office visitor log, Stockade, 26 December 2008, in 0903, out 1053, visitor pass V-125
2010 opinion letterLetter to Jack Goldberger dated 16 August 2010, reproduced in the appendix to Epstein’s New York sex-offender appeal1
Correspondence with Epstein25 March 2009 to 20 November 2018 on first-sheet date headers67
Documents located967 as a floor (see Name forms, and what this count is)

Stephen R. Alexander is a clinical and forensic psychologist in West Palm Beach, Florida. He was Jeffrey Epstein’s psychologist, he was named by Epstein’s defence lawyers in the special conditions of the diversion deal they proposed to the Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office in August 2006,4 he signed the opinion letter that Epstein’s lawyers submitted in the New York sex-offender risk-level proceeding, saying that “the probability of his reoffending is negligible”,1 and he corresponded with Epstein directly from March 2009 to November 2018.67

The record also shows him doing things that are not treatment. In February 2010 Epstein told him not to take an answer by telephone but to insist on a face-to-face meeting about modifying or ending his own probation, and Alexander answered that he would do what he could and that there was “Lot going on at State Attorney’s Office today.”8 In December 2011 he sailed to the Virgin Islands, was invited to the island by Epstein, and afterwards wrote: “Probably is best to keep the guest list between you and me.”9 He sent Epstein intelligence about who was talking to the FBI in the Rothstein matter.10 He and Epstein were co-investors in a West Palm Beach house that lost money, and Epstein’s accountant Richard Kahn handled the wind-up.1112

Nothing on this page is a finding of wrongdoing. Where Epstein’s own patients appear in these documents, only Epstein himself is named; he is the patient whose file is at issue, and he is not within any protected class this wiki recognises.

The 2006 diversion terms name him

On 9 August 2006 Jack A. Goldberger of Atterbury, Goldberger, Richardson & Weiss, P.A. wrote to Lanna Belohlavek at the Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office to confirm “the agreement reached between the parties on July 21, 2006” in State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 06-9454 CF A99.4 The letter sets out eleven numbered conditions of a proposed pretrial-intervention agreement. Condition 9 requires Epstein to be polygraphed by George Slattery & Associates. Condition 10 reads:

As an additional special condition, at periodic intervals of six months, twelve months, and ten days prior to the termination of the pretrial intervention agreement, Mr. Epstein shall engage in sessions with Dr. Stephen Alexander at his own expense. Mr. Epstein specifically waives any privilege of confidentiality to the State Attorney’s Office concerning the sessions. This waiver of confidentiality is limited to the State Attorney’s Office. The results of the sessions with Dr. Alexander will not be disclosed unless the State Attorney’s Office determines there has been a violation in the agreement and the State Attorney’s Office gives notice and consults with the defense before taking any action.4

The condition is not “a psychologist approved by the State”; it names one man. The letter is Epstein’s counsel’s account of terms the defence had agreed, and it was written by the defence, not by the State. That diversion agreement was not the deal that was eventually done: the state case resolved in June 2008 in a plea to two counts, and the separate federal Non-Prosecution Agreement had been signed the previous September. What the August 2006 letter establishes is that, two years before the plea, the person Epstein’s defence proposed as the court-facing psychologist was already Dr. Stephen Alexander.4

The Stockade visitor log, 26 December 2008

Epstein was serving his sentence in the custody of the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office. An Official Visitor Log sheet for the Stockade carries a typed row reading, in its own columns: date 12-26-08, time in 0903, visitor StephenAlexander- Pysch Dr., pass V-12, staff or inmate being visited I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special), time out 1053.5

The row assignment on this sheet cannot be taken from the text layer. The extraction reorders the right-hand columns, putting Q-Bldg. and I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special) against the wrong visitors.5 The sheet is also skewed, so at 200 dpi the ruled lines cross the typed text and the columns appear to belong to neighbouring rows. The row above is pass PBSO, purpose Q-Bldg.; the row below is pass PBSO, purpose Q-Bldg. again. Alexander’s row is the only one on the sheet of those four that carries a V- visitor pass and an inmate name.5

Other visitors on the same sheet are recorded as Trinity staff, SAAP staff and an alumni group going to the Drug Farm. One handwritten row, timed in at 1540 on 12-26-08, reads Arnold P. Prosperi- Paralegal, pass L-3, visiting I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special).5

April 2009: in a meeting with the lawyers

On the morning of 16 April 2009 Epstein wrote to his assistant Story Cowles: “i would like to talk to bruce reinhart jack and alexander together friday , or early next week”. Cowles asked whether he wanted that by phone or in person; he answered “person”. She then asked whether Darren should be in the meeting as well; he answered “no”. Later the same morning she reported: “Meeting set tentatively (waiting for call back from Bruce) for Monday at 4pm at FSF. Fergie is coming sometime Monday but other than that your schedule is free. This is the best time for Dr. Alexander and Jack.”13

The grouping is the point. On Epstein’s own account of what he wanted, his psychologist belonged in a room with two lawyers.

February 2010: the State Attorney’s Office

On Monday 22 February 2010 Epstein wrote to Alexander at his drsra address:

don’t let burns give you an answer on the phone. A face tp face meeting is imperative =modification or discharge from probation , statute encouraged , answers most of the questions. Private eyes trying to give her false info. trying to create a situation that i can be considered in violation, would stop.8

Alexander replied “I understand the need for a face-to-face.” Epstein wrote again: “in practical terms for me to get probation permission it will have to happen today or tomorrow.” Alexander answered: “Will do what I can. Lot going on at State Attorney’s Office today.” and signed the message SRA.8

“Burns” is not identified in that exchange. The Assistant State Attorney who represented the State of Florida in State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein was Barbara Burns; an Agreed Order in Case No. 2008CF009381A records the agreement of the parties, “Jack Goldberger representing Jeffrey Epstein and Barbara Burns representing the State of Florida”.14

“Barbara” is also the name Alexander uses in his own correspondence for his practice manager: an out-of-office reply from his address in September 2014 reads “His practice manager, Barbara will be in the office on a limited basis and she will monitor telephone messages”, and in January 2011 he wrote to Epstein “Barbara took day off so I was alone in office. Pure hell.”15

The message that follows uses the forename and nothing else, and this page does not join it to either woman. The next afternoon Alexander wrote to Epstein from a second address he used: “Have meeting at 10:30 tomorrow. Barbara said not to come with “high expectations."" and signed it “Steve Alexander”.16 Whether the Barbara of 23 February 2010 is the prosecutor or the practice manager is not settled by anything read for this page, and no document read for this page records what was said at the 10:30 meeting or whether it took place.

What the 22 February thread does establish without inference is that Epstein used the psychologist named in his own diversion terms as a channel on the subject of modifying or ending his own supervision, that the approach was to be face to face rather than by telephone, and that Alexander agreed to try and reported that there was a great deal going on at the State Attorney’s Office that day.

The subpoenas for his file, 2009

In August and September 2009 his file on Epstein was sought from him in two proceedings. A Subpoena Duces Tecum Without Deposition in L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 502008CA028051XXXXMB AD, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, was directed to the “Medical Records Custodian, Dr. Stephen Alexander, 400 Executive Center Drive, Suite 202, West Palm Beach, FL 33401”, commanding production on or before 30 September 2009 of “The complete medical file including MRIs, scans, Xrays and any other diagnostic test result, Intake Form, notes, reports, opinions, correspondence to or from third parties, correspondence to or from Jeffrey Epstein, referrals, medical bills, in short, your complete file on: Jeffrey Epstein”.3 A related notice of intent to subpoena names “MRC - Stephen Alexander, M.D.” among the entities to be served.17 He is a Psy.D., not an M.D.; that is the filing’s error, and it recurs.

In the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act litigation, Jane Doe v. United States, No. 08-cv-80119 (S.D. Fla.), a reply filed on the docket on 16 October 2009 put the fight over those records in these terms:

Epstein claims, but does not prove, that he has hired Dr. Stephen Alexander as an expert witness in this case. He contends that he is therefore no obligated to turn over Dr. Alexander’s records.

Jane Doe understands that Dr. Alexander was Epstein’s physician before this litigation ever started. Therefore, as to all records before such hiring, there is no protection. Even after such hiring, it would be Epstein’s burden to show that certain medical examinations were done for purposes of litigation to prove work-product protection18

The sentence continues past that point and closes by calling it “a burden Epstein has not attempted to meet.”18 The word before is italicised on the sheet.18 The passage records the position Epstein took: that the man who had been his treating psychologist since before the case had become a litigation expert, and that the file was therefore work product. A separate filing in Epstein’s own suit against Bradley J. Edwards lists the three medical professionals whose records were sought in August and September 2009 as “Stephen Alexander, Bruce W. Markowitz and Charles J. Galecki”,19 and a defence exhibit list in the same matter renders the trio as “Charles J. Galecki, M.D.; Bruce W. Markowitz, M.D.; and Steven R. Alexander, Ph.D.”20 That misrendering, wrong in both the forename and the degree, is the document’s own error and not an extraction fault; it recurs across at least twenty-two documents.

August 2010: the opinion letter

On 16 August 2010, on his own letterhead, Alexander wrote to Jack Goldberger. The letter runs to a single paragraph of substance and is signed in ink above his typed name:

Since my initial assessment of Mr. Epstein he has been extremely cooperative with all of the services provided to him. He has spent a great deal of time and energy focusing on his behavior and the attitudes, beliefs and expectations that undergird his approach to life. He has examined his priorities and undergone a comprehensive self-exploration on more than one occasion, primarily because of the vast changes that have occurred in his life and the upheaval these events have caused. Throughout it all Mr. Epstein has remained willing to focus on himself and how to turn even the most dire personal circumstances into productive experiences to the fullest extent possible. In my opinion Mr. Epstein has been highly cooperative with and benefited from the treatment provided. Relying upon my 25 years of experience as a forensic psychologist and the plethora of data gathered by me, I state with confidence that Mr. Epstein poses no threat to himself or the community. It is abundantly clear that he has learned his lesson and the probability of his reoffending is negligible. Mr. Epstein poses no threat to either himself or the general community, and he requires no additional intervention or treatment for his no-risk/low-risk status to be maintained into the future.1

The letter and a three-page curriculum vitae were filed together as pages A58 to A61 of the appendix, the letter at A58 and the curriculum vitae at A59, A60 and A61, in People of the State of New York v. Jeffrey E. Epstein, New York County Clerk’s Index No. 30129/2010, in the Appellate Division, First Department. The appendix cover names Jay P. Lefkowitz and Sandra Lynn Musumeci of Kirkland & Ellis LLP as attorneys for the defendant-appellant, and the New York County District Attorney’s Office as attorneys for the respondent.21

The curriculum vitae filed with it records a Psy.D. from Florida Institute of Technology in 1985, an M.S. from Eastern Kentucky University in 1980 and a B.A. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1977; Florida licensure as a psychologist, PY0003713; and, before private practice, two posts with the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County. As Chief Psychologist from September 1987 to July 1989, his listed duties included “psychological evaluations of children, adolescents and adults in delinquency, dependency, custody, and sex abuse cases; testimony as Expert Witness”, and programme supervision of a 48-bed residential treatment centre for adolescents; as Court Psychologist from October 1985 to September 1987 the entry reads “Psychodiagnostic evaluations of children, adolescents and adults for the court in delinquency, dependency, custody and sex abuse cases”.2 The Fifteenth Judicial Circuit is the circuit in which Epstein’s state prosecution and the civil suits against him were brought.

The letter’s use, and the words struck out of it

The submission to the New York Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders closed by arguing that Epstein “should be classified as a level 1 sex offender”.22 Its text relied on the opinion twice: “Dr. Alexander’s well-supported judgment that Mr. Epstein presents little or no risk of reoffense…” appears in the list of circumstances said to support “a level 1 designation”, and “Dr. Alexander’s CV is included in Ex. B.”23

A draft of that submission survives in the release with its tracked changes on the face of the sheet. Four passages are struck through in red and three insertions are underlined in red:24

  • “has spent with Mr. Epstein over the course of more than four years, Dr. Alexander is able to state unequivocally that Mr. Epstein has learned his lesson and that there is little or no risk that he will ever reoffend.”
  • “he continued his therapeutic treatment sessions with Dr. Alexander~~, which continue to this day~~.”
  • “Mr. Epstein maintains a vacation private residence in Manhattan”.

The three insertions are the word “vacation” in the last of those passages, the word “somehow” in the closing paragraph, and a full stop after “Dr. Alexander” in the second, which is the mark that has to be added to close the sentence once ”, which continue to this day” is struck out.24 The same sheet carries an editorial query in bold in the body text: “[how describe current employment?]”.24

So the draft asserted that the sessions had run more than four years, that they were therapeutic treatment, and that they were continuing. None of those three assertions is in the finished submission. The filed text reads “substantial time he has spent with Mr. Epstein, Dr. Alexander is able to state unequivocally”, “he continued to meet with Dr. Alexander.” and “Mr. Epstein maintains a vacation residence in Manhattan”: the sentence about the sessions ends where the inserted full stop put it, and both inserted words survive, in “a vacation residence” and in “Even should the Board somehow conclude”.22 This page does not assert why. The deletions are recorded because a drafting history that narrows exactly the claims a risk score turns on is a fact about the submission, whatever the reason.

The press dispute, 2010

In 2010 a news organisation published a series about the plea. A letter from Epstein’s attorneys itemising complaints about the coverage includes, as its final numbered point, that “Dr. Stephen Alexander’s telephone has not been disconnected with no forwarding number”, contrary to what the letter says the journalist claimed in an article of 29 July 2010.25

The article itself is quoted at length inside the release. Its relevant passage reads: “According to a source in law enforcement, however, Epstein was allowed to submit a report by his private psychologist, Dr. Stephen Alexander of Palm Beach, Florida, whose phone has since been disconnected with no forwarding information.”26 The phrase “his private psychologist, Dr. Stephen Alexander” returns 24 documents in the index and “whose phone has since been disconnected” returns 23, so the same clipping is reproduced across roughly two dozen documents in the release.26 A separate message from a reporter to Epstein seeking comment puts the point directly: “In lieu of a mandatory “impartial” psychological evaluation prior to sentencing, you submitted a report from your personal psychologist, Dr. Stephen Alexander of Palm Beach, Florida.”27

The correspondence, 2009 to 2018

The earliest dated message located between the two men is from Epstein, on 25 March 2009: “only if necessary i would take an apt so that it wouldn’t be ” the mansion”.6 The latest is from Alexander on 20 November 2018, a reply in a thread headed “Apple” in which he reported having bought two thousand Apple shares “After communicating with you” and asked whether it was a good time to buy again.7

Of the 967 documents located, 681 carry a parseable date header on their first sheet. Their distribution by year is 2009: 14, 2010: 226, 2011: 237, 2012: 82, 2013: 66, 2014: 16, 2015: 6, 2016: 30, 2017: 3, 2018: 1.28

Three strands in that traffic are worth separating out.

Information about investigations. On 15 December 2011 Alexander wrote to Epstein: “A person I know is in contact with FBI agents sitting in the Rothstein depo. He is singing like a bird, implicating lawyers and outside firms in his scams. The DOJ is apparently trying desperately to keep him off certain topics, ostensibly because they have criminal investigations underway. The transcripts are being made public soon, however. Will let you know if I hear anything.”10 Thirteen days later he wrote again: “Check story on Scott Rothstein in the Sun Sentinel about a week ago. Doug Bates, Esq. was named as one of the lawyers involved in the scams. Call me about it when you get the chance.”29 On 3 June 2010 he reported that he was making enquiries about a captain at the Stockade and had turned up nothing: “Haven’t found out anything about Cpt. at stockade yet. People I talk to do not know about it until I say something, so must have been kept quiet for some reason.” The same message worked through the arithmetic of a lawyer’s fee claim and told Epstein to “Demand to see her time sheets and then get her payroll hours at Dade’s State Attorney Office. It is a public record. Promise it will not compute.”30

The island. On 15 December 2011 Alexander told Epstein “I will be in St. Thomas next Wed. Will wave at your island when we sail by.”10 Epstein replied “no no no come visit ,, please”.31 The next day Alexander sent the itinerary:

We dock in St. Thomas at Charlotte Amalie Wed at 8:00 am and depart at 5:00 pm. We then sail to St. Maarten and the map makes it look like we’ll motor right past your island on the way. If you are on the island I would love to see you. John would especially like to meet you.32

On the morning of Tuesday 20 December 2011 Epstein instructed a member of his staff whose display name prints “Sarah K”: “please coordinate , dr alexanders . visit tomorrow.. he is on theboat.” She answered: “I’ve tried calling his cell, but it only says its not accepting calls at this time, and emailed him as well. I can see if there is a way to get ahold of him on the boat. Do you know what time you’d like them to come over?” Epstein replied: “try his office.”33 The visit was therefore arranged for Wednesday 21 December 2011, the day the ship was due at Charlotte Amalie, and it was arranged through Epstein’s office. The plural in “you’d like them to come over” is the sheet’s.33

That instruction reaches no search for Alexander’s name: the extraction renders it dr alexanders, one token, and no phrase form of the name touches it. It was found by sweeping the run-together possessive.34

On Christmas Day Alexander wrote “Merry Christmas.”; Epstein replied “that was fun”; and on 27 December Alexander wrote back: “Had a great time also. Probably is best to keep the guest list between you and me. Hope your trip is fun.”9 The nesting of the three messages on the sheet fixes that order. The two clock times quoted inside that sheet, 10:15 AM for the first message and 9:19 AM for the reply that quotes it, cannot be on the same clock, since the later message is stamped earlier; no interval between them is computed here.9

The visit came sixteen months after the opinion letter in which Alexander wrote that Epstein required “no additional intervention or treatment” for his status to be maintained.1

Favours for his son. In November 2010 Epstein wrote to Alexander: “have john call steve regarding his internship”.35 On 11 June 2011 Epstein wrote to Alexander, copying Steve Hanson: “hanson,, can you organze something for dr alexanders son school.. thanks”.36 In October 2014 Alexander asked Epstein: “Do you know Jeff Fisher? His company, Island Hospitality, offered John a job in the corporate Revenue Management department on Palm Beach today.”; Epstein answered “i do not. know him”.37 The relationship ran in both directions: the psychologist named in Epstein’s diversion terms was asking his patient for introductions.

124 Parc Monceau

On 18 January 2014 Epstein answered a message from Paul Prosperi about a Palm Beach property deal: “I would love to help you, what do you propose. .?” The message he was answering, quoted beneath his reply, describes a “contract option on (Steve Alexander is involved)”.38 The house at the centre of the deal was 124 Parc Monceau, West Palm Beach. By 2016 it was being marketed through Richard J. Steinberg and Kerry Warwick of Douglas Elliman, with Richard Kahn of HBRK Associates and Darren Indyke on the correspondence, and with Alexander handling the house itself: keys, cleaning, a stucco repair quote and a proposal to stage the property at $5,000 a month.3940

On 7 March 2016 Alexander wrote to Epstein under the subject line “Paul”: “Paul died last night. Wanted you to know.”41 Epstein replied: “shame.”42 From that point the correspondence refers to “Paul’s estate”, to “Paul’s sister and Charlie, Paul’s estate personal representative”, and to the estate holding “approximately 400k in loans”.4344 No document read for this page states the surname of the Paul whose death Alexander reported. Paul Prosperi is the Paul named on the deal: an expense breakdown circulated by Kahn on 8 June 2016 carries the attachment name 124_ Parc_ Monceau_ - _ detail_ of expense Prosperi.Alexander.pdf.45

The house sold in 2016. On 2 June 2016 Alexander wrote to Kahn:

I want you to let JE know that I understand he is owed 10% interest after his initial investment per the agreement, so everything left is actually his money. I felt presumptuous negotiating for a share of the current remainder & I appreciate his being willing to share it with me.12

Three weeks later, after Kahn had put a figure to him, he wrote again. Kahn forwarded it to Epstein under the subject line “Stephen Alexander” with the note “Attached is his thoughts after our discussion regarding 50,000 payment to him. Please advise when I shall make payment”.11 Alexander’s message reads in part:

I have always acknowledged JE participated as a favor and that he is entitled to full return of his investment first. I assume he is also entitled to interest on his investment prior to either Paul or I receiving our investment back, and then any remainder would then be divided per the contract. (I cannot locate my copy of the contract. It was drawn up by Paul & Jeffery. I had no real input because I have no familiarity with these matters. I had no disagreement with the terms then and have none today). I have always acknowledged that under the contract JE is entitled to the entire proceeds, as the amount remaining after he was made whole is less than the interest he is owed.

I understand from you that JE was offended by my proposal, apparently thinking I felt I deserved more of the remainder than he does. This is precisely why I did not want to make the initial offer. I did not think that I deserved more that JE just as I do not believe he thinks I deserve to lose $400,000. As I have said to you before, I do not consider my loses his responsibility.11

The money direction is therefore the opposite of the one a reader might assume. Epstein put money into the deal, the deal lost money, and on Alexander’s own account Epstein was entitled under the contract to the whole of the proceeds and was choosing to share a remainder with him. Kahn’s covering note records a $50,000 payment being prepared to Alexander, not from him. On 12 July 2016 Alexander wrote to Kahn: “Tell Jeffery thanks. And thank you also. Let me know if you get a hot stock tip. I might have some cash on hand after offsetting my loss. (just kidding)”.46

A year later he put the loss to tax. On 30 June 2017 he wrote to Epstein:

I am planning to use the $358,000 loss I incurred with Parc Monseau to offset capital gains on some stock I plan to sell. The Philip Morris I acquired back in ‘87 spun off Mondelez-Kraft & I am thinking about selling it and investing the money elsewhere. I will sell about $280,000 worth. Do you have any suggestions?47

Epstein’s entire reply, forty-eight seconds later on the two sheets’ RFC-form headers, was: “Apple”.48

Parc Monseau is Alexander’s own spelling in that message and is printed that way on the sheet at 200 dpi.47 It is not an extraction fault, and it should not be corrected when the sentence is quoted. The property is 124 Parc Monceau, and the two spellings reach different populations in the index: "Parc Monceau" returns 109 documents and "Parc Monseau" returns 5.49 Parc Monceau is a street, not a person.

Hardman Development and the bank guaranty

Separately from the house, Alexander had guaranteed the debts of a company called Hardman Development Corp. National City Bank sued on the guaranty in Palm Beach County. A reply to his affirmative defences records that “The Guaranty signed by Stephen Alexander waives his right to assert the defenses available under Florida Statute §673.4191 and §673.6051”, and the plaintiff’s cost affidavit lists service of process on “Hardman Develop.”, “Stephen Alexander” and “Julie Hardman” at $40.00 each.50

He kept Epstein informed throughout, and Epstein advised him. On 9 February 2011 he wrote to his attorney Trent Steele, copying Epstein:

I just got off the cell. A PBSO dectective called me on my cell to ask about Mike Hardman. She has a dozen victims who have talked to her about being swindled by Mike and she wants to talk to me as a victim. I spoke with her briefly about my involvement with Mike. She wants me to come in and talk to her officially and bring my records to show how Mike has cheated me and possibly stole money from Hardman Development. She advised me to talk with you first about what I can and can’t say and to tell you that you were welcome to come with me. She wants to subpoena the PNC bank records because she wants to have all finanacial records associated with Hardman. Please call me so we can discuss.51

On 2 November 2011 he laid out a tax problem to Epstein: whether to transfer his Hardman Development stock back to Mike Hardman, and what that would do to his ability to claim the loss. Epstein answered: “pay the 60k. and work out the tax details later.. you will have a fraud loss greater than your tax . get a MI settlement and release. I willl hep with the nexgt step.”52

The matter ended in 2016. On 12 April 2016 Alexander wrote to Epstein: “After all these years, Mike Hardman stipulated to a judgmen[t] for $550,000.00 plus 6% interest sine 2009. My CPA says that sets t[h]e date of loss as of the day of the Agreed Order. Glad that’s over.”53

Name forms, and what this count is

"Stephen Alexander" as a phrase returns 119 documents. That is not the population. His e-mail handle drsra, which appears on two domains in the release, returns 717.54 The union of every form verified as his is 967 documents, and this page states that figure as a floor, not as a convergence.

form searcheddocumentsnew to the union
"Stephen Alexander"119119
"Stephen R. Alexander"12086
"Steve Alexander"5844
"Dr. Alexander"8756
stephenalexander21
drsra717618
kmsquare10
andtoto230
stopmyspam60
"Alexander, Psy.D."1100
"433-2355"113
"Alexander, Ph.D."2323
"Steven Alexander"82
alexanders (run-together possessive)3711
handle corruptions (drsr, drsri, drsrai)4 documents outside the union, each read at its sheet4
union967

Counts are count(distinct efta_number) against the FTS5 index over text_content, run 2026-09-14. "Alexander Stephen" in surname-first field order returns 0; the export’s surname-first habit does not operate on this name.49

Homographs subtracted. "s.alexander" returns 15 documents and is not him: the hits are Miles S. Alexander, a manager of Epstein’s Virgin Islands companies, whose name appears on bank signatory schedules for Island Grounds Inc. and LCP Company LLC and on a 2004 memorandum from LSJ, LLC; an academic citation to K. W. Alexander; a lawyer named Alexander S. Lorenzo; and a FedEx delivery signature. Those 15 are excluded from the union.55 "Stephon Alexander" returns 7 and is a different man, a physicist.

The run-together alexanders carries the same problem in sharper form. It returns 37 documents; 17 are this subject and 20 are not. The 17 divide as eight copies of one Epstein instruction of 20 December 2011, three copies of one of 16 December 2009, five copies of one of 11 June 2011, and one message of 3 November 2011 reporting that his office had said he was out.34 The 20 that are not divide as nine documents about Alexander’s, the New York department store, in Epstein’s correspondence with a retail acquaintance; eight documents reproducing one newspaper interview with “the Alexanders”, the South African couple who managed Epstein’s Virgin Islands property from 1999; two documents naming Eileen Alexanderson; and one horticultural list in which “Alexanders” is a plant.34 Miles S. Alexander, Stephon Alexander, the department store, the island management couple and Eileen Alexanderson are all outside this page.

What this method could not reach. A prefix-range fts5vocab enumeration was run against the index for forms within Levenshtein distance 2 of alexander and distance 1 of the handles. The surname pass returned 78 index terms, of which 77 are not the base spelling. Each of the 77 was conjoined with stephen, steve, psychologist, psy or drsra, and ten returned documents outside the union. Five of those ten are damaged renderings of the surname (alexand, alexandar, alexande, alexandr, alexsander) and between them reach six documents, every one of which was opened and read and none of which is this subject. Four of the remaining five are ordinary distinct names that fall within edit distance of the surname (alexandra, alexandre, alexandro, oleander) and are excluded on that ground rather than by reading each of their 121 documents; that exclusion is a judgement and a reader may overrule it. The tenth, alexanders, was not a different name at all, and is dealt with above: it is the possessive run together, and it carried eleven documents into this page that no name form reaches.56 The handle sweep also paid: drsr, drsri and drsrai each carry real messages to or from him.

Four things this bounds, and does not close:

  1. A prefix sweep cannot reach a corruption of the first character. A form beginning orsra, clrsra or arsra sorts outside every range scanned around dr, and the one arsra term found was noise on a guaranty form. Anything under an unscanned first character is outside this floor.
  2. A harvest that reads identifiers off documents already found cannot reach an identifier that appears only on documents it has not found. Four addresses and handles were harvested this way ([email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], plus the Yahoo handle andtoto2). A fifth, used only in traffic with someone else, would be invisible to this method.
  3. A possessive or a run-together form is a different token, and this page found one only because it swept for it. alexanders was not generated by any edit-distance rule as a corruption; it appeared in the vocabulary and had to be read. Other run-together or split forms that nobody thought to probe would sit outside this floor in exactly the same way.
  4. A producing party’s redaction choices bound the count and no query can see them. Where a sheet bars the name and prints nothing else identifying, the document is outside every form above.

What the floor is made of. Classifying the first sheet of each of the 967 documents by its own header fields, using the label set From/Fran/Front for sender and To/Cc/CC/Bcc for recipient, 518 carry him in a sender field, 213 more carry him as an addressee, and 236 carry him in neither position on the first sheet. That classifier reads only the first sheet, and the extraction is known to corrupt the From: label on roughly seven per cent of e-mail pages, so the sender figure is itself a floor.

Limits of this page

  • The DOJ-OGR copy of the 2006 letter was not opened at the image. The /pdf/ route returns HTTP 404 for that identifier and 403 for the bates number of its final sheet, so the document exists behind a route this desk cannot read. Every quotation attributed to the 2006 pretrial-intervention letter on this page is taken instead from EFTA02728839 p.2, which carries the same text and was read at the image at 200 dpi.4
  • The 10:30 meeting of 24 February 2010 is unresolved, and so is the identity of “Barbara”. No document read for this page records whether the meeting happened or what was said. Searches written before they were run and then run: drsra conjoined with each of "2/24/2010", "2/25/2010", "2/26/2010", "February 24, 2010", "February 25, 2010" and "February 26, 2010", which returned nothing; a scan of every document in the 967-document union for a date string of 24 to 26 February 2010, which returned nothing; and (drsra OR stopmyspam) conjoined with "Barbara", which returned seven documents, all of which were read. Those seven are the reason this page will not identify the Barbara of 23 February 2010: two of them use the name for his practice manager and one is the message itself.15 The page names Barbara Burns only as the prosecutor of record, from the Agreed Order.14
  • No document read for this page gives the surname of the man whose death Alexander reported on 7 March 2016. What a disconfirming document would say was written down before the searches were run: an obituary line, a condolence message, a probate caption, or a sentence naming an estate. The forms run were "Paul Prosperi" conjoined with died, which returned one document and not that subject; "Prosperi" conjoined with death, died, deceased or estate of, which returned seven, all read and none of them a death notice; and "Prosperi" conjoined with obituary, passed away, funeral, memorial service, sympathy or condolence, which returned three, all read and none of them about him. What the record does establish is that Paul Prosperi is the Paul on the Parc Monceau deal, from the attachment name Kahn circulated, and that no correspondence from Prosperi later than 26 February 2016 was located.
  • The island visit’s guest list is not in the record read for this page. The arrangement of the visit is documented, from Epstein’s side, in his 20 December 2011 instruction to his staff.33 What is not documented is who else was there: Alexander’s “keep the guest list between you and me” is the only reference to a list located, and no list, manifest, log or photograph of the occasion was found. Searches run for it, written before they were run, were "guest list" conjoined with drsra; drsra conjoined with ("little st" OR island), which returned 41 documents, all read in snippet and none a list; and a scan of every document in the 967-document union carrying a date string for 22 to 29 December 2011, which returned the Christmas thread, two Rothstein items and two forwards of Epstein’s own plea papers.
  • The struck-out words in the draft submission were read at 300 dpi and in the sheet’s own 96 ppi image, where the deletions render in red with strike-through rules and the insertions render underlined. The count of four deletions and three insertions was taken from the native image, not from the render.24
  • Three quotations reproduce spelling as the sheet prints it: “Parc Monseau”, “dectective” and “finanacial”. They are not repaired here.
  • The visitor-log row assignment was settled by shear-correcting a 500 dpi render, because the sheet is skewed and its ruled lines cross the typed text. The reading is stated above with the neighbouring rows so that it can be checked.5
  • No count on this page is a convergence. The 967 is a floor with the four named mechanisms above running against it.

Footnotes

  1. EFTA00180921 p.64, letter of Stephen R. Alexander, Psy.D. to Jack Goldberger, Esq., Atterbury, Goldberger and Weiss, P.A., dated 16 August 2010, “Re.: Jeffrey Epstein”, filed as appendix page A58. Read at the image at 200 dpi. The signature is ink: variable stroke width, sitting off the baseline and running past the typed name beneath it. The letterhead prints his name, the description “Clinical Psychologist”, the Forest Hill Boulevard address and an office telephone line, which is not reproduced here. The sheet prints “learned his lesson”; the text layer of this page renders that word “teamed”. Further copies of the same letter are at EFTA00792400 p.62, EFTA01077162 p.62 and EFTA00230786 p.719. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  2. EFTA00180921 pp.65, 66 and 67, curriculum vitae of Stephen R. Alexander, Psy.D., filed as appendix pages A59, A60 and A61 behind the opinion letter at p.64, whose divider heading reads “Letter from Stephen R. Alexander, Psy.D. to Jack Goldberger Regarding Opinion of Jeffrey E. Epstein, dated August 16, 2010” and “[pp. A58-A61]”. All four sheets read at the image at 200 dpi. Education, licence number and the Chief Psychologist duties are on p.65 (A59); the Court Psychologist post, October 1985 to September 1987, is on p.66 (A60); p.67 (A61) carries the remainder of the practicum placements, “PUBLICATIONS & RESEARCH PAPERS”, “AWARDS”, “PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS” and “COMMUNITY SERVICE POSITIONS”. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  3. EFTA00729752 p.1, Subpoena Duces Tecum Without Deposition, L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 502008CA028051XXXXMB AD, Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, Civil Division. Read at the image at 200 dpi. The plaintiff is captioned by initials only on the face of the filing and is not further identified here. ↩ ↩2

  4. EFTA02728839 p.2, letter of Atterbury, Goldberger, Richardson & Weiss, P.A. to Lanna Belohlavek, State Attorney’s Office, dated 9 August 2006, RE: State of Florida v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 06-9454 CF A99; conditions 7 to 11 and the closing paragraph. Read at the image at 200 dpi: the sheet is signed in ink above the typed name “Jack A. Goldberger” and carries the reference “JAG/slm”. The letterhead and addressee are on p.1 of the same document. The same letter appears at DOJ-OGR-00030354 pp.113 and 114, which this desk could not render (see Limits); the opening paragraph quoted in the body stands on p.113 of that copy and condition 10 on p.114. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  5. EFTA02749385 p.22, Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office, Department of Corrections, Official Visitor Log, Stockade, headed “Central Control” in manuscript. Read at the image: rendered at 200 dpi and again at 500 dpi, then shear-corrected by the measured skew of the ruled lines (0.0336 vertical units per horizontal unit) so that each row band could be read across the sheet. In the corrected view the four typed rows read, in order: 12-26-08 / 0859 / Mirlande Osting- Trinity Staff / PBSO / Q-Bldg.; 12-26-08 / 0903 / StephenAlexander- Pysch Dr. / V-12 / I/M: Epstein, Jeffrey (T-Special); 12-26-08 / 1003 / Brenda Nugrent- Trinity Staff / PBSO / Q-Bldg.; 12-26-08 / 1234 / Gary Gipson- SAAP / PBSO / Drug Farm area. The TIME OUT column, read in the same corrected view, gives a typed 1053 against the Alexander row. The extraction of this page assigns the right-hand columns to the wrong rows. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  6. EFTA01827476 p.1, produced header To: [email protected] / From: Jeffrey Epstein / Sent: Wed 3/25/2009 8:56:03 PM. Quoted from the text layer; not verified at the image. This is the earliest first-sheet date header located in the 967-document set. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  7. EFTA01016130 p.1, From: Steve Alexander / To: J <[email protected]> / Subject: Re: Apple / Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 16:35:05 +0000, quoting his own message of the same morning. Quoted from the text layer; not verified at the image. This is the latest first-sheet date header located in the set. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  8. EFTA02430752 p.1, produced header To: Jeffrey Epstein[[email protected]] / From: drsra / Sent: Mon 2/22/2010 5:05:17 PM / Subject: Re: your mail. Read at the image at 200 dpi. The sheet carries three messages in a single chain, innermost first: Epstein’s “don’t let burns give you an answer on the phone…”; Alexander’s “I understand the need for a face-to-face.”, quoted as “On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:32 AM”; Epstein’s “in practical terms for me to get probation permission…”; and Alexander’s reply at the top. The produced header carries no time zone and no interval is computed from it here. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  9. EFTA02023950 p.1, produced header To: ...Jeffrey Epstein / From: drsra / Sent: Tue 12/27/2011 4:48:36 PM / Subject: Re:. Read at the image at 200 dpi. The sheet carries three messages nested innermost-first: “Merry Christmas.”, quoted as “On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 10:15 AM”; Epstein’s “that was fun”, quoted with the header “Date: Sunday, December 25, 2011, 9:19 AM”; and Alexander’s message at the top. The nesting fixes the order; the two quoted clock times contradict that order, so they are not on one clock and no interval is computed. Further copies are at EFTA01770595 p.1 and EFTA00927137 p.1, the latter carrying the outer message in RFC form as Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 16:48:36 +0000. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  10. EFTA01994573 p.1, produced header To: [email protected]...; Jeffrey Epstein / From: drsra / Sent: Thur 12/15/2011 8:08:07 PM. Read at the image at 200 dpi. A further copy of the same text, quoted inside Alexander’s reply of 16 December, is at EFTA02002090 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  11. EFTA00633658 p.1, From: Richard Kahn / To: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> / Subject: Stephen Alexander / Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 12:33:17 +0000, carrying Alexander’s message of Friday, June 24, 2016 at 8:21 AM. Read at the image at 200 dpi. The two quoted paragraphs are contiguous on the sheet. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  12. EFTA00693486 p.1, Kahn’s forward to Epstein, Subject: Fwd: 124 Parc Monceau / Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2016 13:12:24 +0000, carrying Alexander’s message of June 2, 2016 at 9:07:50 AM EDT. Read at the image at 200 dpi. A further copy is at EFTA02386471 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  13. EFTA00749022 p.1, From: "Story Cowles" / To: "Jeffrey Epstein" <[email protected]> / Subject: Re: Re: Re: / Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:04:40 +0000. Read at the image at 200 dpi. The chain runs, innermost first: Epstein at 10:14 AM “i would like to talk to bruce reinhart jack and alexander together friday , or early next week”; Cowles “Phone or in person?”; Epstein at 10:16 AM “person”; Cowles at 10:52 AM “I will arrange. Darren will be here that day. Do you want him in meeting as well?”; Epstein at 10:52 AM “no”; and Cowles’s message at the top. The quoted times are Gmail-rendered local times and no interval is computed from them here. ↩

  14. EFTA01625438 p.287, Agreed Order in State of Florida vs. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 2008CF009381A: “This cause came on to be heard upon the agreement of the parties, Jack Goldberger representing Jeffrey Epstein and Barbara Burns representing the State of Florida”. Quoted from the text layer; not verified at the image. ↩ ↩2

  15. EFTA00997793 p.1, From: drsra / To: [email protected] / Subject: Auto Response / Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 10:11:53 +0000: “Dr. Alexander will be out of the office until September 29th. His practice manager, Barbara will be in the office on a limited basis and she will monitor telephone messages.” And EFTA00902350 p.1, From: drsra / To: jeffrey epstein / Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 23:06:10 +0000: “Barbara took day off so I was alone in office. Pure hell. Phone never stops ringing.” Both quoted from the text layer; not verified at the image. Two further documents in the same seven, EFTA00704696 p.1 and EFTA01795546 p.1, carry Alexander telling a lawyer “You can call Barbara to set up a consult time via telephone or I can come to your office.” ↩ ↩2

  16. EFTA02428642 p.1, produced header To: [email protected]...; (Jeffrey Epstein) / From: stopmyspam / Sent: Tue 2/23/2010 3:16:57 PM. Read at the image at 200 dpi. Body in full: “Have meeting at 10:30 tomorrow. Barbara said not to come with “high expectations."" signed “Steve Alexander”. The produced header carries no time zone. ↩

  17. EFTA00728324 p.1, notice of intent to serve a subpoena, listing “MRC - Stephen Alexander, M.D.” among the entities to be served, certificate of service dated August 2009. Quoted from the text layer; not verified at the image. ↩

  18. EFTA01073755 p.16, Jane Doe v. United States, Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM, Document 354, entered on the S.D. Fla. docket 16 October 2009, page 16 of 18. Read at the image at 200 dpi; the word “before” is set in italics on the sheet. A further copy is at EFTA01107917 p.16. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  19. EFTA00807470 p.8: “In August and September 2009, Edwards, on behalf of his client M., served Notices of Production from Non-Parties evidencing his intent to obtain Epstein’s medical records from Stephen Alexander, Bruce W. Markowitz and Charles J. Galecki.” Quoted from the text layer; not verified at the image. ↩

  20. EFTA02770021 p.15 and EFTA00584195 p.13, rendering the same trio as “Charles J. Galecki, M.D.; Bruce W. Markowitz, M.D.; and Steven R. Alexander, Ph.D.” Quoted from the text layer; not verified at the image. "Steven R. Alexander" returns 22 documents in the index and "Alexander, Ph.D." 23, all of them filings in the Epstein v. Rothstein, Edwards matter or its exhibit lists. ↩

  21. EFTA00180921 p.1, cover of the appendix in People of the State of New York against Jeffrey E. Epstein, Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, New York County Clerk’s Index No. 30129/2010, naming Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., New York County District Attorney’s Office for the respondent and Jay P. Lefkowitz and Sandra Lynn Musumeci, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, for the defendant-appellant. Quoted from the text layer; not verified at the image. ↩

  22. EFTA01077162 p.61, appendix page A57, the closing sheet of the finished submission, signed in ink above the typed name “Martin G. Weinberg”. Read at the image at 200 dpi and the two numerals again at 600 dpi and in the native 96 ppi image. The sheet prints “Based on all the relevant factors, Mr. Epstein should be classified as a level 1 sex offender. Even should the Board somehow conclude that Mr. Epstein’s risk assessment guidelines score exceeds 70, the circumstances addressed in this letter differentiate this case so markedly from the norm of level 2 sex offenders that the Board should recommend a level 1 classification”. The numeral after “level” is the arabic figure on the sheet, as the “level 2” in the same sentence is, and as the draft at EFTA00731128 p.6 is; the extraction renders it “I”. The same sheet carries the finished form of the three passages struck out in that draft: “substantial time he has spent with Mr. Epstein, Dr. Alexander is able to state unequivocally”, “he continued to meet with Dr. Alexander.” and “Mr. Epstein maintains a vacation residence in Manhattan”. ↩ ↩2

  23. EFTA01077162 p.59, submission on Epstein’s risk-level classification, appendix page A55, carrying the closing sentences of the Alexander letter, the citation “Letter of Stephen R. Alexander, Psy. D., submitted herewith as Ex. B.”, the phrase “Dr. Alexander’s well-supported judgment that Mr. Epstein presents little or no risk of reoffense…”, which continues into a list of further circumstances and is cut here, and the footnote “Dr. Alexander’s CV is included in Ex. B.” Read at the image at 200 dpi, and the numeral in “a level 1 designation” read at 600 dpi and in the native 96 ppi image: it is the arabic figure, carrying the flag at the top left that the figure 1 carries elsewhere in the same document and not the two symmetrical serifs of a capital I. The extraction renders it “I”. The sheet also discusses the offence of conviction by reference to a complainant whose name is barred on the released copy and from whose stated dates an age is computable; nothing from that passage is reproduced here. ↩

  24. EFTA00731128 p.6, draft submission to the New York Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, carrying tracked changes. Read at the image at 300 dpi and in the native 96 ppi image: the four struck passages (“over the course of more than four years”, “his therapeutic treatment”, ”, which continue to this day”, “private”) render in red with a horizontal strike rule, the three insertions (a full stop after “Dr. Alexander”, “vacation”, “somehow”) render in red and underlined, change bars run in the left margin, and the editorial query “[how describe current employment?]” renders in bold black in the running text. A red-channel scan of the native image finds marked text in four bands on the sheet and nowhere else, which is the whole of the tracked change on it. Further copies of the same draft sheet are at EFTA00587000 p.6 and EFTA00722390 p.6. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  25. EFTA00727881 p.3, numbered point 12 of a letter from Epstein’s attorneys to a news organisation. Quoted from the text layer; not verified at the image. A further copy is at EFTA00755965 p.3 and a variant numbering at EFTA00727878 p.3. ↩

  26. EFTA00208306 p.2, reproducing the article passage in full. Read at the image at 200 dpi. The document runs to two sheets: p.1 is a Justice Department e-mail chain forwarding the item, and the article text begins on p.2, whose Bates stamp reads EFTA00208307. The same block appears at EFTA00206173 pp.100, 113 and 162, EFTA00436099 p.3, EFTA00436114 p.7, EFTA00436124 p.1, EFTA00599855 p.21, EFTA00908529 p.2 and EFTA01122242 p.21. ↩ ↩2

  27. EFTA00737261 p.1, message to Epstein listing four points on which comment was sought, of which the third is quoted. Quoted from the text layer; not verified at the image. Further copies at EFTA00895127 p.1 and EFTA02408958 p.1. ↩

  28. Measured 2026-09-14 over the 967-document union by reading the first sheet of each document and matching either an RFC-form Date: header or a Sent: header in m/d/yyyy form. 681 of 967 first sheets matched one of the two forms; the remaining 286 are court filings, exhibit lists, press reproductions and sheets whose header did not match either pattern. The year figures are counts of documents, not of messages. ↩

  29. EFTA02003903 p.1, produced header From: drsra / Sent: Wed 12/28/2011 3:26:03 PM. Quoted from the text layer; not verified at the image. ↩

  30. EFTA00735048 p.1, From: "drsra" / To: "Jeffrey Epstein" <[email protected]> / Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 13:27:10 +0000, signed “SRA”. Quoted from the text layer; not verified at the image. A further copy is at EFTA02408056 p.1. ↩

  31. EFTA02002090 p.1, quoting Epstein’s message of Thursday, 15 December 2011, 5:10 PM: “no no no come visit ,, please”. Quoted from the text layer; not verified at the image. ↩

  32. EFTA00926474 p.1, From: drsra / To: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> / Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:36:03 +0000. Read at the image at 200 dpi. The quoted span is contiguous on the sheet; the sentences before and after it concern the family’s reason for travelling and what they would do if Epstein were not there, and are not reproduced. ↩

  33. EFTA00926199 p.1, From: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> / To: Sarah K / Subject: Re: / Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:38:54 +0000. Read at the image at 200 dpi. The sheet carries three messages nested innermost-first: Epstein at “Dec 20, 2011, at 11:33 AM”; the reply at “Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:38 AM”; and Epstein’s “try his office.” at the top. The recipient’s display name prints “Sarah K” and this page does not resolve it further. Further copies of the inner instruction, each carrying it in the run-together form dr alexanders, are at EFTA00528516 p.1, EFTA00926200 p.1, EFTA01848496 p.1, EFTA01848531 p.1, EFTA01848614 p.1, EFTA01984332 p.1 and EFTA02547795 p.1, the last of which produces it alone with the header Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 4:34 PM. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  34. alexanders census, 2026-09-14. The token returns 37 documents; the matched passage of every one was read, so this is not a sample. His, 17: the 20 December 2011 instruction in eight copies (the seven named at 33 plus EFTA00926199); the 16 December 2009 instruction “please send steve alexanders our fax number at home” in three, EFTA00743759 p.1, EFTA00886668 p.1 and EFTA01822410 p.1; the 11 June 2011 school message in five, named at 36; and EFTA02032485 p.1, subject “Dr Alexander”, reporting “Dr Alexanders cell number is just ringing and his assistant says he is out of the office.” Not his, 20: the New York department store at EFTA00652259 p.1, EFTA00653963 p.1, EFTA00749103 p.1, EFTA00772220 p.1, EFTA01836783 p.1, EFTA01998988 p.1, EFTA02357643 p.1, EFTA02412779 p.1 and EFTA02439287 p.1; the newspaper interview with the couple who managed the Virgin Islands property at EFTA01205884, EFTA01779732, EFTA01779745, EFTA01779764, HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022970, HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022971, HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022972 and HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022973 (the corpus row for HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022970 is a container row of some fifteen thousand characters rather than a single page, and this classification rests on its text layer and on the seven siblings, not on a sheet); Eileen Alexanderson at EFTA02126438 p.1 and EFTA02520038 p.1; and a horticultural list at EFTA00259898 p.1. 17 + 20 = 37. All classifications but EFTA00926199 are from the text layer and are not verified at the image. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  35. EFTA00898539 p.1, From: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> / To: drsra / Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 11:28:50 +0000. Quoted from the text layer; not verified at the image. A further copy is at EFTA01984461 p.1, whose header renders the recipient handle as drsri. ↩

  36. EFTA00913088 p.1, From: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> / To: drsra / Cc: Steve Hanson / Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 13:01:51 +0000. Quoted from the text layer; not verified at the image. Four further copies are at EFTA00913092 p.1, EFTA00913157 p.1, EFTA00913172 p.1 and EFTA01862734 p.1. The sheet prints “organze” and the double comma after “hanson”. ↩ ↩2

  37. EFTA02591425 p.1, Epstein’s reply of Saturday, 11 October 2014 12:19 AM quoting Alexander’s message of Friday, 10 October 2014 5:03 PM. Quoted from the text layer; not verified at the image. A further copy of Alexander’s message is at EFTA02335968 p.1. ↩

  38. EFTA00689467 p.2, chain of 18 January 2014 between Epstein and paul prosperi, carrying the phrase “contract option on (Steve Alexander is involved)” and Epstein’s reply “I would love to help you, what do you propose. .?” Quoted from the text layer; not verified at the image. ↩

  39. EFTA00835416 pp.1 to 3, chain of 29 January 2016 among Richard J. Steinberg of Douglas Elliman, Richard Kahn, Kerry Warwick, Paul Prosperi and Alexander, including Alexander’s “And the staging? That we could do soon if everyone agrees. If the staging helps sell the house sooner it pays for itself (at $5,000/month)” and “I know George Jones does good work and is honest, but someone else might be cheaper.” Quoted from the text layer; not verified at the image. Related sheets: EFTA00629784 p.2 (subject “Re: Parc Monceau staging”), EFTA00835469 p.1 and EFTA00835472 p.1 (the $20,000 staging proposal), EFTA00710704 p.2 and EFTA00835198 p.2 (a February 2016 offer and a recommendation to counter at $6 million), EFTA00833855 p.1 and EFTA00833912 p.1 (Darren Indyke, “5.7 and be firm”). ↩

  40. EFTA00836687 p.3, Alexander to Richard Kahn and Darren Indyke, 12 January 2016: “Richard, I made two keys for you and left them where we discussed. Someone will come vacuum and tidy up the house this week.” Quoted from the text layer; not verified at the image. ↩

  41. EFTA00648728 p.1, From: Stephen Alexander / To: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> / Subject: Paul / Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2016 02:13:54 +0000, signed with his letterhead block. Quoted from the text layer; not verified at the image. A further copy is at EFTA02355689 p.1. ↩

  42. EFTA00832512 p.1, From: "jeffrey E." <[email protected]> / To: Stephen Alexander <[email protected]> / Subject: Re: Paul / Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2016 02:25:31 +0000, body “shame.” Quoted from the text layer; not verified at the image. ↩

  43. EFTA00827182 p.1, Alexander to Richard Kahn, Thursday 19 May 2016 3:26 PM, forwarded to Epstein: “I have been contacted several times by Paul’s sister and Charlie, Paul’s estate personal representative, about the sale of the house.” Quoted from the text layer; not verified at the image. ↩

  44. EFTA00636186 p.1, Kahn to Epstein carrying Alexander’s message of 8 July 2016 8:21:16 AM EDT, including “He also said that Paul’s estate has approximately 400k in loans.” Quoted from the text layer; not verified at the image. Further copies at EFTA00669983 p.1, EFTA02346012 p.1, EFTA02370595 p.1 and EFTA02380014 p.1. ↩

  45. EFTA00679266 p.1, From: Richard Kahn / To: Jeffrey Epstein / Subject: 124 breakdown / Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 15:40:34 +0000, attachment named 124_ Parc_ Monceau_ - _ detail_ of expense Prosperi.Alexander.pdf. Quoted from the text layer; not verified at the image. ↩

  46. EFTA00823968 p.1, Kahn’s forward to Epstein, Subject: steve alexander / Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 22:06:57 +0000, carrying Alexander’s message of July 12, 2016 at 9:58:55 AM EDT. Quoted from the text layer; not verified at the image. A further copy is at EFTA02458732 p.1. An earlier sheet in the same wind-up, EFTA00826256 p.1, carries Kahn’s proposal that of “approximately 300,000 remaining in this deal after all bills are paid he receive 180,000 and jee receives 120,000”, with Kahn reporting “steve said that he is comfortable with whatever decision you make and was a gentleman on the phone.” ↩

  47. EFTA01041905 p.1, From: Stephen Alexander / To: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> / Subject: Question / Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 15:14:13 +0000, signed “Steve Alexander”. Read at the image at 200 dpi; the sheet prints “Parc Monseau”. ↩ ↩2

  48. EFTA01041907 p.1, From: "jeffrey E." <[email protected]> / To: Stephen Alexander / Subject: Re: Question / Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 15:15:01 +0000, body “Apple”. Quoted from the text layer; not verified at the image. Alexander’s reply of Sunday, 2 July 2017, “Thanks. Hope all is well with you”, is at EFTA01042095 p.1. ↩

  49. Counts run 2026-09-14 against the FTS5 index over text_content, count(distinct efta_number): "Parc Monceau" 109, "Parc Monseau" 5, "124 Parc Monceau" 77, "Alexander Stephen" 0. ↩ ↩2

  50. EFTA01112229 pp.5, 6 and 32, reply to affirmative defences and cost affidavit in National City Bank v. Hardman Development Corp. and others. Quoted from the text layer; not verified at the image. Correspondence from the bank’s counsel, Michael T. Kranz, appears at EFTA00656796 p.2: “National City Bank is unwilling to release Dr. Alexander from his Guaranties for anything less than set forth in my previous correspondence to you.” ↩

  51. EFTA01999948 p.1, produced header To: [email protected]...; Trent Steele / Cc: [barred] / From: drsra / Sent: Wed 2/9/2011 10:25:39 PM. Read at the image at 200 dpi. The quoted paragraph is reproduced as printed, including “dectective” and “finanacial”. The produced header carries no time zone. ↩

  52. EFTA01849759 p.1, produced header From: Jeffrey Epstein / Sent: Thur 11/3/2011 1:08:19 AM / Subject: Re:, quoting Alexander’s message of Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 8:25 PM. Quoted from the text layer; not verified at the image. A related sheet, EFTA01795953 p.1, carries Alexander’s report of 13 April 2011 that the bank had “finally produced copies of records, including checks” and that “Mike wrote $260,000.00 to himself”. ↩

  53. EFTA02340001 p.1, From: Stephen Alexander / Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 1:09 PM / To: Jeffrey Epstein / Subject: Hardman / Attachments: Summary Judgment Order-Hardman.PDF. Quoted from the text layer; not verified at the image. The sheet carries quoted-printable damage: it renders “judgmen=” for “judgment”, “sine” for “since” and “t=e” for “the”. The bracketed repairs in the body text above are this page’s, and are marked. ↩

  54. Counts run 2026-09-14, count(distinct efta_number): drsra 717 documents across 731 pages; "[email protected]" 10; "[email protected]" 26. A random sample of fourteen drsra pages was read: all fourteen are messages to or from this subject. ↩

  55. EFTA00091271 p.3, EFTA00065864 p.1, EFTA01273238 p.3 and EFTA01252357 p.1 (bank signatory schedules naming “MILES ALEXANDER” and “MILES S ALEXANDER” for Island Grounds Inc. and LCP Company LLC); EFTA00600319 p.7 (memorandum of 29 March 2004 from “Miles S. Alexander, Manager”, LSJ, LLC); EFTA02801674 p.1 (Alexander S. Lorenzo, Alston & Bird LLP); EFTA00159901 p.7, EFTA00159928 p.14 and EFTA00159951 p.5 (academic citations to K. W. Alexander); EFTA00217147 p.4 (a FedEx delivery record signed “S.ALEXANDER” for a shipment whose recipient is a third party). All read in context from the text layer. ↩

  56. Enumeration run 2026-09-14 using CREATE VIRTUAL TABLE temp.v USING fts5vocab('main','pages_fts','row') on a mode=ro connection, over the prefix ranges al, ai, a1, aj, ae, ol, dl, ll, 4l, el for the surname and dr, dt, ds, or, cl, ci, tl, tr, br, il, lr, ar, km, kn, lm, rm, sto, st0, slo, dl, do for the handles, at Levenshtein distance 2 and 1 respectively. 289,302 index terms were scanned in the handle pass. Both runs completed. The documents behind every candidate that produced a hit outside the union were opened and read. For the surname forms they are EFTA02450724, a roster of a Washington policy institute; EFTA02395253, a market-commentary item naming an analyst; EFTA02418344, a 2010 message about a man named John Alexander; EFTA01108457, a violinist’s biography naming a teacher; HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_018232, a bibliography of network-science texts; and HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019477, a narrative about a family in Hong Kong. The corpus rows for those last two are container rows, not single pages: each holds several hundred thousand characters, so the reading that excludes them is a reading of a container row’s text layer and not of a sheet. Neither is cited anywhere else on this page and nothing this page asserts rests on either. None of the six is this subject; and EFTA00767852, EFTA01848328, EFTA01865695 and EFTA01984461 for the handle forms, all four of them him. The vocabulary table’s doc column counts pages, not documents; every figure quoted on this page was re-derived with count(distinct efta_number). ↩

Backlinks